Table of Contents
A Call for Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Chapter 1: Overview — Change in Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Chapter 2: Trends and Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Chapter 3: Finances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Chapter 4: Investments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Keep Our System in a State of Good Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Lead the Charge on Climate Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Maximize System Performance Through Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Price Highway Travel Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Provide Equitable Access to Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Keep Walking and Rolling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Take Bold Steps Toward Focused Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Moving Goods in Northern California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Deliver the Next Generation of Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Chapter 5: Building Momentum for Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Appendix 1 — Projects by County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Bay Area Region/ Multi- County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Alameda County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Contra Costa County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Marin County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Napa County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
San Francisco County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
San Mateo County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Santa Clara County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Solano County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Sonoma County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Appendix 2 — Supplementary Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Appendix 3 — Related Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N 2 0 3 5 P L A N 1
M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N 2 S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
All long- term plans are about change. There can be disagreement
about precisely which changes the future will bring, or how fast
they will occur, or what can and should be done about them — but
no one doubts that conditions 25 or 30 years hence will be differ-ent
than they are today. Change is a certainty, and to plan means
to reckon with change.
And all transportation plans are, by definition, about motion. Plan-ners
necessarily focus their attention on what is being transported
( cargo or people), and by what means ( by truck, car, bus, train,
ferry, bicycle, or even by foot). But it is motion — the business of
getting from here to there — that is the core concern of every
transportation plan.
In these respects, this Transportation 2035 Plan for the San
Francisco Bay Area is like other long- range transportation plans:
It is about change and it is about motion. And if we had labeled the
plan “ Change and Motion,” it would be an accurate if unremarkable
description. But we call our plan “ Change in Motion” — and what a
difference a two- letter word can make.
Change in Motion
“ Change in motion” gets at what is most distinctive about this
transportation plan by managing to simultaneously convey several
key ideas. First, it says that change is happening; it is “ in motion.”
Second, and most importantly, it suggests that motion ( i. e.,
transportation) is changing, and that this plan is playing a role in
A Call for Change
This plan proposes crucial changes
to the Bay Area’s transportation system. “ ”
that change. Both these things are true. We are definitely living
in a time of change, and this plan will bring changes to the
Bay Area’s transportation system. And both meanings are central
to the structure and development of this plan. Further, this short
phrase carries the sense that the overall change process is
dynamic and ongoing, and it will unfold over time as we move
forward. And this also is true.
Focusing on the first meaning, to say that change is “ in motion”
is to emphasize its immediacy. It is not a contingent or abstract
aspect of a distant future. It is already under way. Indeed, to cite
one key example, the buildup of greenhouse gases in our atmos-phere
is not only already happening, it has been happening for
longer than we knew. And, to mention just two examples, a dizzy-ing
run- up in the price of oil and a stomach- churning economic
downturn were significant changes that forced themselves on
our attention in real time, as we were developing this plan.
Other important changes, such as the graying of the Baby Boom
generation, are imminent and will soon affect us.
In drawing up the Transportation 2035 Plan, we have been acutely
aware of rapidly shifting conditions and policies, even as we cast
our eyes to the far horizon and strive to fashion a vision and a
strategy for the future. This lends the plan a note of urgency and
inspires a readiness to take action against the root causes of
problems like traffic congestion, for instance, and not just to
ameliorate symptoms.
But most crucially, “ change in motion” serves to clearly announce
that the ways that residents travel around the Bay Area are chang-ing,
and that this plan will change them further. By means of its
investment choices and adopted policies, the Transportation 2035
Plan aims to stimulate the use of public transit, increase the safety,
utility and appeal of bicycling and walking, and reduce miles
traveled and emissions by cars and trucks in the Bay Area while
increasing the efficiency of the roadway and transit systems for
all users.
Innovative approaches such as pricing of excess carpool- lane
capacity on highways, a brand- new Transportation Climate Action
Campaign to target greenhouse gases, a major public transit
expansion program, a multipronged Freeway Performance Initia-tive
to maximize throughput on existing highways, and an overall
emphasis on measurable performance improvements are signal
components of this plan. In these ways, the Transportation 2035
Plan attempts to influence or initiate a whole range of actual
“ changes in motion.” Travel around the region will be different
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N 2 0 3 5 P L A N 3
Travel around the region will be different
as a result of the steps taken in this plan. “ ”
M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N 4 S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
as a result of the steps taken in this plan, and the changes will be
to the Bay Area’s benefit.
More than a tag line, “ change in motion” thus succinctly captures
what is distinctive about the Transportation 2035 Plan. As trans-portation
planners, we are both coping with changes and trying
to cause them. And these two processes are interrelated and inter-woven
in this plan. The plan itself is a catalog of changes which,
taken in their entirety, we hope will lead to a future of greater
mobility, reduced congestion, cleaner air and a better quality of life
in the Bay Area. That is the direction we want change to be moving.
Choosing Change
Bay Area residents and newcomers live and work in this region
because of its physical beauty, resilient economy, cultural and
ethnic vibrancy, and quality of life. These gifts, whether
bequeathed by Nature or fashioned by the hands of our neigh-bors
and forebears, are now ours to protect and carry forward
for new generations.
Today we stand at the proverbial fork in the road. We can continue
to live off of our inheritance or establish a new legacy for genera-tions
yet to come. We can inspire, innovate and implement an
integrated, efficient regional transportation system that bolsters
our regional economy, safeguards our environment, and ensures
social equity throughout our region. But to do so we must respond
to the changing environment around us. We must anticipate
change, instigate change, and, most of all, we must succeed in
putting change in motion. We must also take chances and risk
failures along the way. We ask you to join us in choosing change
and choosing a better future for the Bay Area.
We must anticipate change, instigate change,
and, most of all, we must succeed in putting
change in motion. “
”
If you do not change direction,
you may end up where you are heading.
LAO TZU
“ ”
The Transportation 2035 Plan looks deeply into the future, into the
middle of the 21st century. There is reason to believe that the midpoint
of Century 21 is going to be profoundly different than the middle of the
20th century, from which most of our present transportation planning
assumptions and methodologies originate. We are looking ahead at a period
of unprecedented changes. Some of these changes will be extensions of
trends that have been emerging for some time, although many are just now
coming into public consciousness. Other changes will be abrupt departures
from the trends we are familiar with — transformative and structural
changes, for which past practice provides little guidance.
Not all changes will be equally severe. Some of the changes on the horizon
may merely require that we modify how we approach transportation
planning to include factors that have heretofore played only a marginal
role. Others may reverberate dramatically through all sectors of economic
and social life, including our transportation behavior. But it seems
certain that the changes we face will beget changes in the ways we move.
Welcome to change in motion.
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N 2 0 3 5 P L A N
Overview — Change in Motion
5
M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N 6 S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
Transportation 2035 is change in motion. Guided
by the Three Es of sustainability — Economy,
Environment and Equity ( see pages 1 1 and 13)
— the plan’s ambitious goals and performance
objectives will transform not only the way we
invest in transportation but the very way the
Bay Area travels. Transportation 2035 sets forth
a bold vision and takes us on a journey to:
Where mobility and accessibility are ensured
for all Bay Area residents and visitors, regardless
of race, age, income or disability; and
Where our bicycle and pedestrian facilities,
public transit systems, local streets and roads,
and highways are all safe and well- maintained
and take us when and where we need to go; and
Where an integrated, market- based pricing
system for the region’s carpool lanes ( via a
regional express lane network), bridges and
roadways helps us not only to manage the
demand on our mature transportation system
but also to pay for its improvements; and
Where our lively and diverse metropolitan
region is transformed by a growth pattern that
creates complete communities with ready, safe
and close access to jobs, shopping and services
that are connected by a family of reliable and
cost- effective transit services; and
Where technology advances move out of the
lab and onto the street, including clean fuels and
vehicles, sophisticated traffic operations systems
to manage traffic flow and reduce delay and
congestion on our roadways, advanced and
accessible traveler information that allows us
to make informed travel choices, and transit
operational strategies that synchronize fare
structures, schedules and routes to speed travel
to our destinations; and
Where we have a viable choice to leave our
autos at home and take advantage of a seamless
network of accessible pedestrian and bicycle
paths that connect to nearby bus, rail and ferry
services that can carry us to work, school,
shopping, services or recreation; and
Where we lead and mobilize a partnership of
regional and local agencies, businesses and
stakeholders to take effective action to protect
our climate and serve as a model for national
and international action; and
Where our transportation investments and
travel behaviors are driven by the need to reduce
our impact on the earth’s natural habitats; and
Where all Bay Area residents enjoy a higher
quality of life.
Transportation 2035: Statement of Vision
Change Affects Planning
The Transportation 2035 Plan arises out of and
is responsive to the unique historical moment
we find ourselves in, when external forces
and the Bay Area’s own aspirations impel us to
change the way we think about and plan our
transportation future. Some of the most salient
changes the Transportation 2035 Plan confronts
are described below.
Climate Change on
the Region’s Radar
The warming of Earth’s climate due to emissions
of greenhouse gases is now an accepted reality,
and the consequences of this global phenome-non
will make themselves felt to some degree
despite any steps we may take to mitigate their
impact. In California and the Bay Area we will
experience a greater number of extreme- heat
days, increased wildfire risk, a shrinking Sierra
snowpack that would threaten the state’s water
supply, and a rise in sea level ( which would
threaten the transportation infrastructure
concentrated near the shoreline of the Bay).
With transportation accounting for 40 percent
of the region’s greenhouse gas emissions, the
Bay Area faces a clear imperative to address
climate change in the Transportation 2035 plan-ning
process. If that by itself were not enough
to motivate us, the landmark California Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006 ( also known as
AB 32) mandates a reduction in greenhouse
gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020
— effectively a 15 percent cutback from today’s
level. And the signing last year by Governor
Schwarzenegger of Senate Bill 375 — which
mandates the California Air Resources Board to
work with regional agencies like MTC and the
Association of Bay Area Governments to curb
sprawl and reduce greenhouse gas emissions —
adds momentum to this effort. This plan must
take on the challenge of achieving these climate
change goals.
Volatile Oil Prices Add
Planning Wild Card
The record- high gasoline prices witnessed
during the development of the Transportation
2035 Plan introduced a sudden and perhaps pro-found
change into the planning process ( though
prices have eased considerably in more recent
months; see chart on page 8). Combined with
data indicating that the volume of gasoline sold
in California actually declined in each of the last
three years, higher oil prices could help boost
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N 2 0 3 5 P L A N 7
To protect the magnificence of San Francisco Bay and the environ-ment
of our entire region, our long- range plans must confront head- on
the threat posed by climate change. This Transportation 2035 Plan
begins to take up that challenge.
“
” Will Travis, Executive Director, Bay Conservation and Development Commission
M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N 8 S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
a nascent trend toward less driving — a trend
bolstered by recent upticks in transit usage in
the Bay Area. This could result in reductions
in the number of vehicle miles traveled in the
region, with beneficial impacts on congestion,
highway fatalities, and greenhouse gas emis-sions
and other air pollutants.
On the downside, the lion’s share of transpor-tation
funding is derived from the federal and
state excise taxes on gasoline, and if less fuel
is purchased, fewer dollars are available for
future improvements. Current levels of funding
already fall short of our needs, and this will
only get worse if people cut back on driving
and buy less gas. New funding mechanisms will
have to be developed. In the meantime, fuel
taxes should be raised to recover lost purchasing
power due to decades of legislative failure to
adjust these vital levies.
Land Use Changes in FOCUS
Not all changes present daunting challenges.
Some changes show the way toward future
progress. A case in point is a joint regional
planning initiative called FOCUS, which pro-motes
future growth in areas near transit and
within communities that surround the San
Francisco Bay. Still in its early years, FOCUS
is getting considerable traction in the region,
as demonstrated by the fact that 60 local gov-ernment
entities have volunteered to facilitate
the designation of Priority Development Areas
( PDAs) within their jurisdictions. A PDA is
locally designated land where future growth
can be channeled, at sufficient densities to take
advantage of existing infrastructure and serv-ices,
especially transit service. The current
inventory of adopted PDAs ( planned and poten-tial)
includes nearly 120 individual areas across
the region. Together they comprise only about
3 percent of the region’s land area, but based on
estimates provided by local governments they
could accommodate as much as 56 percent of
the Bay Area’s growth to the year 2035 — all in
locations that will be accessible to high- quality
transit. The early interest in this program is a
hopeful sign for the region.
Aging Population Portends Shift
in Housing and Travel Choices
Key among the demographic changes that will
affect Bay Area transportation is the aging of
the Baby Boomers. As this sizeable segment of
the region’s residents reaches senior status, it is
expected that many will relocate into smaller
dwellings in the more urban portions of the Bay
Area to have easier access to essential services
and cultural opportunities. For some, with
aging will come a loss of the ability to drive,
and for those with low incomes or physical
disabilities, “ lifeline” transportation issues will
Average Bay Area 1 Gasoline Prices, 2006 – 2009 2
Source:
U. S. Department of Energy
Jan 2006
Jan 2007
Jan 2008
Jan 2009
$ 1.50
$ 2.00
$ 2.50
$ 3.00
$ 3.50
$ 4.00
$ 4.50
$ 5.00
Price per Gallon of Regular Unleaded
1 Survey of gas stations in Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
2 Through March 2009
The volatility of world oil markets makes long- range forecasting of gasoline prices an unusually speculative exercise.
The rise or fall of gasoline and diesel prices can be powerful forces for change, but their future course is perilous to predict.
become increasingly important. From a land-use
and mobility perspective, then, the graying
of the Baby Boomers would seem to argue
for a greater emphasis on smaller homes, low-maintenance
housing arrangements, and a
heavier reliance on non- driving transportation
options, such as transit and ride- sharing with
younger friends and family.
Rising Construction Costs Put
Premium on System Efficiency
For entities overseeing infrastructure programs,
such as Caltrans, a longer- term trend toward
higher global commodities prices has often
resulted in unprecedented construction cost
increases. During 2005 and early 2006, some
construction material prices rose much faster
than consumer or producer price indices.
The consequences of such price increases can
include huge funding gaps that are not antici-pated,
delay or deferral of projects for a year or
more ( often leading to further inflation- caused
cost increases), and even cancellation of projects.
Because the Bay Area has a mature system,
maintenance costs are significant, and delay or
deferral of new projects means we must continue
to pay dearly to maintain an aging system.
While construction costs have abated during
the current economic downturn, it is imperative
for us to look beyond infrastructure toward
lower- cost, more- efficient ways to better manage
the system we have in place.
One possible answer, advocated in this plan, is
to institute a Bay Area Express Lane Network
on the region’s freeways. By giving drivers of
non- carpool vehicles the option of “ buying
into” underutilized carpool lanes, the express
lane network would allow us to better manage
travel demand while raising needed revenue.
And other technology- based improvements can
help us to maximize operations of the existing
freeway system.
Expiration of Federal Transportation
Program Creates Uncertainty,
Opportunity
The governing federal surface transportation
legislation, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users ( SAFETEA), expires in September
2009. Expressing its desire to thoroughly review
SAFETEA policies, programs and revenue
mechanisms, Congress created a special study
commission, the National Surface Transporta-tion
Policy and Revenue Study Commission,
to advise it. This group issued its findings in
early 2008, calling for a comprehensive plan
to increase investment, expand services, repair
infrastructure, demand accountability and
refocus federal transportation policy, while
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N 2 0 3 5 P L A N 9
M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
maintaining a strong federal role in transporta-tion.
The possibility of fundamental reform of
the federal transportation program introduces a
fair measure of uncertainty, of course, but it also
represents a tremendous opportunity for a new
national transportation vision. And the coming
to power of a new presidential administration in
2009 promises to add new impetus to this effort.
Here again, the imminence of change forms the
backdrop for the development of this plan.
Planning to Cause Change
This plan does more than simply take into
account the changing circumstances we face.
It addresses them directly, adopting new
approaches that distinguish this plan from its
predecessors. Transportation 2035 epitomizes
change at every turn — change in partners,
change in the planning process, change in goals,
and change in analytic approach. We have fash-ioned
a plan that responds to the transportation
needs and demands of a region ready for change.
Collaboration
From the start, we extended our reach and
embraced a new partnership with our sister
regional agencies — the Association of Bay Area
Governments, the Bay Area Air Quality Manage-ment
District, and the Bay Conservation and
Development Commission — to help us develop
this long- range plan. With the help of our
regional partners, this plan no longer focuses
10
One way to frame the planning challenge facing the Bay Area is:
Are we going to be able to walk the talk? We have been talking for a
long time about smart growth — about integrating transportation and
land use — but we have not had enough ‘ smart walk.’ We know what
we need to do. The question is, are we ready to do it? Transportation
2035 will help test this readiness.
“
” Henry Gardner, Executive Director, Association of Bay Area Governments
solely on surface transportation infrastructure
but takes into account how transportation
affects our land- use patterns, air quality and
climate changes, and vice versa.
Vision Before Budget
In turn, our planning approach and process
has changed. While previous plans focused first
on budgets and how to slice the investment pie,
Transportation 2035 first sought to define a
vision for what the region’s transportation
system ought to look like in 2035, and then
identified, in broad strokes, those policies and
investments that would carry out that vision
( see page 6). In our desire to put priorities
before projects, we made a special effort to look
beyond simple infrastructure solutions, and to
consider a range of operational improvements
and policy innovations.
Economy, Environment, Equity
Rooted in the Three Es of Economy, Environ-ment
and Equity, the vision for Transportation
2035 is to support a prosperous and globally
competitive economy, provide for a healthy and
safe environment, and produce equitable oppor-tunities
for all Bay Area residents to share in the
benefits of a well- maintained, efficient, regional
transportation system. The eight goals that the
Commission adopted for this plan ( see page 13),
including the new climate protection goal and
the new transportation security and emergency
management goal, give more specific expression
to our commitment to the Three E principles.
The policies and investments in this plan are
designed to help us achieve these goals and
to advance the Three Es. The stakes are high:
Failure to make progress toward these goals
would not only have a negative impact on our
transportation system, but would also degrade
the overall quality of life in the Bay Area.
Performance Counts
A performance- based planning approach was
used to help us focus on measurable outcomes
of potential investments and the degree to which
they support stated policies. The use of perform-ance
measures in the Bay Area’s long- range
transportation plan is not new with Transporta-tion
2035. SB 1492 ( Statutes of 2002) requires
the Commission to establish performance
measurement criteria on both a project and
corridor level to evaluate and prioritize all new
investments for consideration in the Regional
Transportation Plan ( RTP). MTC conducted
performance assessments for the 2001 Regional
Transportation Plan, and in 2003, for the
Transportation 2030 Plan. While the evaluation
produced useful information that enabled
comparison among alternative investments,
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N 2 0 3 5 P L A N 11
M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
the evaluation results were available after
many of the key RTP investment decisions had
been made.
However, this time, we used performance met-rics
to drive the visioning efforts and inform
investment trade- offs prior to making invest-ment
decisions. We tested how three robust,
financially unconstrained infrastructure pack-ages
would perform against a set of aggressive
performance objectives. The analysis focused on
reducing vehicle miles traveled, congestion,
carbon dioxide and particulate emissions, and
improving affordability. In addition to the infra-structure
packages, we assessed how a pricing
strategy that increases auto operating costs and
how a land- use strategy that strikes a better
jobs/ housing balance in the urban core would
help us meet the objectives.
In addition, we conducted a project- level
performance assessment. Virtually all projects
proposed for inclusion in the plan were tested
to see if they helped advance the Three E’s.
And a rigorous benefit/ cost analysis was per-formed
on regionally significant, large- scale
projects to determine which projects gave us
the biggest bang for our buck. See the Perform-ance
Assessment Report, listed in Appendix 2,
for additional details of this analysis.
Lessons Learned: Limits of
Infrastructure; Power of Pricing
and Land Use; Need for Technology
and Behavior Change
Our performance assessments helped us to
gauge whether the plan’s objectives are achiev-able,
what it would take to reach them, and
what new authority, new partnerships and new
policies might be required to help us make
progress towards them. We learned that infra-structure
investments produce only modest
tangible effects at the regional level, and that
aggressive pricing and land- use strategies exert
much greater influence than transportation
projects alone in moving us toward achievement
of the performance objectives. We also learned
that we must rely on technological innovations
to make significant headway toward getting us
within range of our goals. In the end, while we
can put forth the best infrastructure investments
and pursue pricing, land- use and technology
advances over the long term, a substantial shift
in the behaviors and choices that individuals
make on a daily basis also is needed to attain
our goals.
12
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N 2 0 3 5 P L A N 13
The anchors of the Transportation 2035 vision
are the Three E principles of sustainability —
a prosperous and globally competitive economy,
a healthy and safe environment, and equity
wherein all Bay Area residents share in the bene-fits
of a well- maintained, efficient and connected
regional transportation system. These Three E
principles frame the following eight individual
goals for this plan.
• Maintenance and Safety
• Reliability
• Efficient Freight Travel
• Security and Emergency Management
• Clean Air
• Climate Protection
• Equitable Access
• Livable Communities
The goals set direction for the future, measure
progress, and evaluate transportation projects
and programs needed to maintain the system,
improve system efficiency and strategically
expand the system. The plan goals are not
entirely confined to any one of the Three Es;
rather, several goals cut across and reinforce
all three principles.
Raising the bar, the Commission also established
a set of performance objectives that further
support the Three Es and the plan goals. These
performance objectives are numerical bench-marks
to measure the region’s progress in
carrying out the vision. These targets are aimed
at reducing vehicle miles traveled, congestion,
carbon dioxide and particulate matter emissions,
and collisions/ fatalities; decreasing the transpor-tation
and housing costs of low- income families;
and improving maintenance and security.
The Commission will periodically measure prog-ress
made toward the performance objectives,
and may consider changes, substitution or dele-tion
of the performance objective( s) to better
align with Commission policy or respond to new
circumstances. The assessment of the perform-ance
objectives will occur as part of the region’s
“ State of the System” report and as part of each
update of the long- range plan. ( See Chapter 2
for more information on Transportation 2035
performance objectives.)
Three Es Guide Transportation 2035 Vision
“ E” Principle Goal Performance Objective
Economy Maintenance and Safety Improve Condition of Assets
Reduce Collisions and Fatalities
Reliability Reduce Delay
Efficient Freight Travel
Security and Emergency Management Reduce Security Vulnerability
Improve Emergency Preparedness
Environment Clean Air Reduce Vehicle Travel
Climate Protection Reduce Emissions
Equity Equitable Access Improve Affordability
Livable Communities
M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
Directing Change:
Transportation 2035
Investments
Embracing the Three Es of sustainability and
the growing regional emphasis on focused
growth, air quality and climate protection gave
us a lens through which to evaluate the policies,
investments and actions in the Transportation
2035 Plan. MTC and its partners looked ahead
to determine the kinds of changes needed to
shape our future and the ways we can direct
those changes. Here are highlights of the
changes put forth in this plan and detailed in
Chapter 4, “ Investments.”
Keep Our System in a
State of Good Repair
Our transit and roadway systems are an integral
part of the Bay Area’s transportation network
and represent a huge investment of public
resources. This plan not only reaffirms the
region’s long- standing “ fix it first” maintenance
policy but also expands our commitment to
maintaining and operating our existing local
roadway and transit systems. The Transporta-tion
2035 Plan directs $ 7 billion in discretion-ary
funds to maintain local roadways at current
pavement conditions, and $ 6.4 billion to close
funding shortfalls for the highest- rated transit
assets.
Lead the Charge on
Climate Protection
Climate change is expected to significantly
affect the Bay Area’s transportation infrastruc-ture
through sea level rise and extreme weather.
The transportation sector’s adverse contribution
to climate change is primarily through green-house
gas emissions from cars, trucks, buses,
trains and ferries. Our transportation decisions
and actions can either help or hinder efforts
to protect the climate, and to this end, the
Commission has set aside $ 400 million to
implement a Transportation Climate Action
Campaign that focuses on individual actions,
public- private partnerships, and incentives and
grants for innovative climate strategies. Known
for its commitment to the environment, the
Bay Area is ideally suited to provide regional
leadership and serve as a model for California,
the nation and the world in our efforts to
reduce our carbon footprint. This plan advances
14
Transportation is the largest source of air pollution and greenhouse
gases in the Bay Area. To protect public health and protect the climate,
we need to make better use of our transit systems, and we need to
build and create livable communities that reduce our dependence on
the automobile.
“
” Jack Broadbent, Executive Officer, Bay Area Air Quality Management District
the fight against global warming and validates
the region’s reputation as a forward- looking force
for change.
Maximize System Performance
Through Technology
The state highway system carries an overwhelm-ing
majority of trips in the Bay Area. The
Freeway Performance Initiative ( FPI), launched
by MTC, Caltrans and partner agencies, is a
strategic plan for improving the operations,
safety and management of major freeway travel
corridors in the region. FPI aims to maximize
the efficiency and reliability of the freeways
through technology applications such as traffic
operations systems and ramp meters, while
limiting freeway expansion to only the most
essential locations. The Transportation 2035
Plan earmarks $ 1.6 billion for the full deploy-ment
and ongoing maintenance of low- cost,
high- tech strategies defined by FPI. In addition,
MTC continues its commitment to the tune
of $ 1.1 billion to support innovative, customer-oriented
operational programs such as the
telephone- and Web- based 511 traveler informa-tion
system and the TransLink ® transit- fare
smart card.
Price Highway Travel Demand
Although commonly employed by airlines,
utility companies and others, using price to
avoid peak- period overload is the exception
in surface transportation policy. As demon-strated
by successful implementation in several
U. S. cities, high- occupancy toll ( HOT) lanes —
which allow non- carpool drivers to pay a toll
to access underutilized carpool lanes — can
bring real benefits to Bay Area travelers. HOT
lanes, often called express lanes, provide travel
options for carpools, express buses and toll
payers; they allow for more efficient use of free-way
capacity; and they generate revenues for
other highway and transit improvements. MTC
in its capacity as the Bay Area Toll Authority,
county- level congestion management agencies,
Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol have
agreed to a set of principles to guide the imple-mentation
of an 800- mile Bay Area Express
Lane Network, which this plan establishes. The
principles represent a commitment to pursue
development of this new network through a
collaborative and cooperative process. The Bay
Area Express Lane Network has the potential
to generate about $ 6 billion in net toll revenues
over the next 25 years. These funds would be
available to finance additional improvements in
the express lane corridors.
Provide Equitable Access to Mobility
The quality of transportation available affects
people’s ability to get to where they need to go
and their overall quality of life. In particular,
ensuring accessibility and expanding mobility
for those whose options are limited due to age,
disability or income is paramount. MTC’s
Lifeline Transportation Program, which funds
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N 2 0 3 5 P L A N
Over the 25- year time span of this long- range
plan, MTC estimates that $ 218 billion from all
public funding sources will be spent on trans-portation
in the Bay Area. Transportation 2035
sets change in motion with $ 32 billion of new
investments — fresh ideas, clever innovations
and bold initiatives that will improve travel in the
region and overall quality of life. Key Transpor-tation
2035 investments that fit this bill include:
• Freeway Performance Initiative
$ 1.6 billion
• Bay Area Express Lane Network
$ 7.6 billion ( funded by toll revenues)
• Transportation Climate Action Campaign
$ 400 million
• Transportation for Livable Communities
$ 2.2 billion
• Regional Bicycle Program
$ 1 billion
• Lifeline Transportation Program
$ 400 million
The Commission also is making multibillion
dollar investments to maintain and expand our
transit systems, and to keep our roadways in
a state of good repair. As well, Transportation
2035 responds to environmental and land- use
changes, and maximizes mobility and accessi-bility
for all transportation users. For details,
see Chapter 4, “ Investments.”
Investing in Change
15
M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N 16 S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
mobility projects for the region’s low- income
residents, has recently experienced a substantial
influx of federal and state funds. The Trans-portation
2035 Plan commits an additional
$ 400 million toward providing transportation
options for low- income communities.
Keep Walking and Rolling
Walking and bicycling are important means of
mobility and good indicators of the health and
well- being of people and communities. It’s no
wonder that “ One Less Car” has been the motto
for avid cyclists for years, and the relevance of
this message rings loudly given growing concerns
about air quality, greenhouse gas emissions,
childhood obesity and diabetes, and fluctuating
gas prices. The Transportation 2035 Plan
endorses these “ active transportation” modes by
putting $ 1 billion towards the full build- out of
the Regional Bikeway Network, and supporting
the Safe Routes to Schools and Safe Routes to
Transit programs embedded in a new Transpor-tation
Climate Action Campaign ( see page 14).
Further, MTC’s Transportation for Livable
Communities program will continue to fund
bicycle and pedestrian access improvements.
Take Bold Steps Toward
Focused Growth
Over the past several years, the Bay Area has
taken big steps to address current and future
population and job growth, and as a result,
our region is steadily moving toward a more
compact, sustainable land- use pattern. Most
recently, the four partner regional agencies
— MTC, the Association for Bay Area Govern-ments,
the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District, and the Bay Conservation and
Development Commission — launched the
incentive- based FOCUS regional development
and conservation initiative as a way to encour-age
more housing adjacent to transit and to
protect our green spaces.
FOCUS Priority Development Areas ( PDAs),
in particular, serve as a mechanism to gain local
government buy- in to pursue focused growth
near transit nodes in their communities.
FOCUS provides funding support via incentives
such as capital infrastructure funds, planning
grants and technical assistance to these commu-nities
because they will bear the lion’s share of
the region’s future growth. In this Transporta-tion
2035 Plan, MTC doubles the size of its
hallmark Transportation for Livable Communi-ties
program, to $ 2.2 billion over the next
25 years, in order to advance focused growth
objectives and support PDAs.
17
Deliver the Next Generation of Transit
Adopted in 2001, MTC Resolution 3434 repre-sents
the Bay Area’s next generation of bus,
rail and ferry service expansion to all reaches
of the region. The 140 new route miles of rail,
hundreds of new route miles of express bus
services, numerous ferry routes crisscrossing
the Bay, and major new transit hubs in San
Francisco and San Jose directly respond to the
travel demands of a growing region. Further, the
Commission’s 2005 adoption of the Resolution
3434 Transit- Oriented Development ( TOD)
Policy helps to maximize the effectiveness and
value of regional services by conditioning dis-cretionary
funds on transit- supportive land
uses. In fact, the TOD policy will help stimulate
the construction of at least 42,000 new housing
units and boost the region’s overall transit rider-ship
by over 50 percent by 2035. As detailed
in the Resolution 3434 Strategic Plan approved
by the Commission in fall 2008, the Bay Area
is committed to delivering the first elements
of this $ 18 billion regional transit expansion
program within the next decade.
Putting Future Change
in Motion
And yet, for all it does, the Transportation 2035
Plan still comes up short of the mark. As our
detailed evaluation of plan investments makes
painfully clear ( see Chapter 2), meeting our
ambitious performance objectives will take more
than the $ 218 billion in infrastructure invest-ments
and the bold new policies and initiatives
that Transportation 2035 delivers. This plan is
but a beginning. Further actions — involving
policies, operating initiatives, institutional
arrangements, additional revenues and new
legal authority — must be taken to move the
Bay Area further along the path to change. We
have identified the most pressing and the most
promising next steps in Chapter 5, “ Building
Momentum for Change.”
But changes beyond the readily foreseeable
are also needed, and for these we look first
to technology. For example, future, as yet-undiscovered
technological improvements,
such as alternative fuels, cleaner vehicles and
improved emission- control systems, can help
us make strides to meet greenhouse gas and air
quality standards. Great safety improvements
can be realized with the introduction of vehicle-to-
vehicle and vehicle- to- roadside technologies,
and these are now in the development pipeline.
It is optimistic but not unreasonable — espe-cially
in the Bay Area, the center of so much
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N 2 0 3 5 P L A N
18 M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
Nearly 6,000 Bay Area residents from all walks
of life helped shape the Transportation 2035
Plan. Their message, delivered resoundingly,
was clear: Our world is changing and we must
change, too!
This call for new direction began in June 2007
with preliminary workshops on overall goals for
the Transportation 2035 Plan. The dialogue con-tinued
in the fall, when MTC and the Association
for Bay Area Governments sponsored a joint
regional land- use and transportation forum
in Oakland that drew 700 attendees. Over the
course of the next 18 months, MTC reached
out to its regional constituents by means of
numerous public workshops and focus groups,
two statistically valid telephone polls ( conducted
in three languages), interactive Web surveys,
“ person on the street” interviews, and via
in- depth discussions with members of MTC’s
three citizen advisory committees and the Bay
Area Partnership.
The people of the Bay Area delivered trans-portation
planners an unmistakable mandate
for change, embodied in messages such as
the following:
• We are concerned about air quality and
climate change. To reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and protect public health, the
Bay Area should focus on decreasing tailpipe
emissions and encourage alternatives to
driving. In a fall 2007 telephone poll of 1,800
residents, approximately two- thirds of
respondents declared that global warming is
extremely important and should be one of the
region’s highest priorities ( see pie chart at top
left, page 19). Additionally, 67 percent of poll
respondents said they would be willing to
accept denser development in their community
to maintain or improve the environment.
• Give us transit options. In polling and at public
forums, we were told that the region’s top
priority for future mobility should be to invest
in transit options — including rail and bus
service — to provide an alternative to driving.
People expressed a desire for more accessible
and affordable public transit, and for a larger,
more- efficient network of bus, rail and ferry
routes. A number of workshop participants
called for more projects to encourage bicycling
and walking as well.
Bay Area Public Drives Mandate for Change
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N 2 0 3 5 P L A N 19
• Support transit- oriented development.
There was consensus for concentrating devel-opment
in areas near transit. Opinions were
mixed, however, on whether cities that are
willing to take on more housing should be
rewarded with more transportation dollars,
or whether these investments should be
spread more evenly around the Bay Area.
Respondents to the fall 2007 poll indicated
a preference for a smaller home and short
commute over a larger home and a long
commute ( 74 percent to 19 percent).
• Improve what we already have. In polls and
public meetings, people often embraced
a “ fix it first” approach to transportation
priorities. Rather than funding new freeways
and expanding transit services, investments
should focus on making the Bay Area’s
existing freeways, local roads and transit
operations run more efficiently.
• Support market incentives in transportation
pricing. Bay Area voters largely accept the
concept of using market- based pricing to
manage demand for freeway carpool lanes,
according to results of a poll of 3,600 voters
conducted in the spring of 2008. A solid
majority ( 62 percent) of poll respondents
expressed support for establishing high-occupancy
toll ( HOT) lanes on area freeways.
( See pie chart to right.) However, if trans-portation
pricing were to be implemented in
the Bay Area, poll respondents called for
actions to address any undue hardships on
low- income drivers.
For a complete summary of Transportation
2035 public involvement efforts, please refer to
the Public Outreach and Involvement Program
Report, as described in Appendix 2.
Importance of Global Warming
2
1
3
Percent
of Total
1 Extremely Important 65%
2 Somewhat Important 28%
3 Not Important 7%
Total 100%
Fall 2007; 1,800 residents Sources: MTC; BW Research
Support for HOT Lanes
1
3
4
Percent
of Total
1 Probably Support 32%
2 Definitely Support 30%
3 Don’t Know/ No Answer 6%
4 Definitely Oppose 19%
5 Probably Oppose 14%
Total 100%
5
2
Spring 2008; 3,600 voters
Percents do not sum to Total due to rounding.
Sources: MTC; BW Research
M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N 20 S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
innovation — to look to technological progress
as a key ally in the quest for better transportation
performance. We think it will play a vital role.
Longer term, we look to the residents of the
Bay Area for the kinds of changes in behavior
— driving less, taking transit more often, living
closer to work, and biking or walking when it
makes sense — that can help the region reach
the goals and performance objectives set out in
this plan. As a region and a nation, we know
that an awakened public can attempt and
achieve dramatic behavioral change once the
scope of a problem is known and well- recog-nized,
and when the way forward is clear. The
success of the campaign against smoking and
the widespread acceptance and active practice
of trash recycling are but two examples of
how growing public awareness can lead to
a commitment to change — with sweeping,
society- wide shifts in behavior. We also place
our hope in this phenomenon. Here, in the col-lective
impact of individual actions multiplied
7 million times over, lies the true promise for
“ change in motion” for the Bay Area.
“ In spirit, this plan is guided by the Three Es — Economy,
Equity, Environment. In practice, it was shaped by the Three Cs —
Convergence, Collaboration and Consensus. The convergence of
issues, especially climate change, higher energy costs and focused
growth, gave us our momentum. The unprecedented collaboration
of the four major regional agencies widened our vision. And the
broad consensus for change among many constituencies emboldened
our actions. These are the secret ingredients of change in motion.” Steve Heminger, Executive Director, Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Trend is not destiny.
LEWIS MUMFORD “ ”
How well our transportation system performs directly affects the day- to- day
mobility of people and goods, and on a macro scale, shapes the Bay Area’s
economic vitality, growth patterns and quality of life. For Transportation
2035, performance is the driving force for change in the way we formulate
our policies, define our priorities, and decide on our transportation
investments. Using performance metrics allows us to assess current and
projected trends, and affords us the opportunity to change our course
should our analyses foretell trends that take us in the opposite direction
from where we want to be in 2035.
The Transportation 2035 Plan embraces performance, beginning with the
identification of a set of highly specific performance objectives against
which to evaluate prospective investments. Though they are planning goals
rather than strict legal mandates, the performance objectives nonetheless
help translate the plan’s Three E principles — Economy, Environment and
Equity — into an integrated set of policy choices to make our region more
dynamic, more livable and more sustainable.
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N 2 0 3 5 P L A N
Trends and Performance
21
M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
Snapshot of the
Bay Area in 2035
Before we determine whether the Bay Area can
meet the plan’s aggressive performance objec-tives,
we must look first at our existing growth
and travel conditions, and then use the latest
planning assumptions to forecast what future
growth and travel trends might look like in 2035.
This helps us to establish future baseline condi-tions
if no new investments are made and no
new policies adopted. These trends, which are
based on past performance, show us what our
future might look like if we do not take action to
change our direction. Highlights of the key 2035
trends, absent any interventions, are discussed
in the following pages. ( See chart on page 23 for
a comparative look at many of those trends).
More People, More Jobs
Today, the Bay Area is home to just over 7 mil-lion
people, and supplies nearly 3.5 million jobs
— making our region California’s second- largest
population and economic center. Between
now and 2035, job growth will increase nearly
1.7 percent a year, outpacing the rate of popu-lation
growth over the same period. The Bay
Area will grow to 9 million people by 2035,
a 26 percent increase from 2006, or an average
of 0.9 percent growth a year. Employment will
grow to 5.2 million jobs by 2035, a 50 percent
increase from 2006. With more people and more
jobs in the region, our local roads, highways
and transit systems will face unprecedented
demand in the years ahead.
Population Grows Older
The Bay Area population also is growing older.
In 2005, about 11 percent of Bay Area residents
were age 65 or older. But by 2035, 25 percent
of the population will be 65 or older ( see chart
above right). Furthermore, the number of people
over age 85 will nearly triple by 2035. More
members of the older population will be active
in the workforce in 2035, and more are likely
to be living in urban areas, where services are
clustered and public transportation is available.
As the population ages, there will be greater
demand for paratransit and specialized mobility
services.
Transportation Affordability
Favors Urban Residents
Average household income in the Bay Area
will rise in real terms from $ 103,000 in 2006
to $ 133,000 in 2035, a 29 percent increase.
However, transportation affordability for low-and
moderately low- income households will
remain unchanged in 2035. Transportation costs
as a share of income for low- and moderately
low- income households will decrease slightly
by 2035, from 22 percent to 21.5 percent. This
may be more the result of incomes rising than
22
Share of Bay Area Population
Age 65 or Older
30 %
25 %
20 %
15 %
10 %
5%
0%
Year
Source: ABAG, Projections 2007
2005 2020 2035
Currently under construction, the new East Span of the
San Francisco- Oakland Bay Bridge will open to traffic in 2013.
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N 2 0 3 5 P L A N 23
Sources: MTC; ABAG, Projections 2007
1 Home- based work vehicle trips
2 Home- based work vehicle driver miles
Regional Demographic, Travel and Air Quality Indicators
Bay Area Total in 2035 ( future conditions, without Transportation 2035 Plan) and Percent Change From 2006
- 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Percent Change
Population ( 9.0 million)
Mean Household Income ( in 2007 $) ($ 133,000)
Employed Residents ( workers) ( 5.0 million)
Employment ( jobs) ( 5.2 million)
Workers from Outside Area ( net in- commute) ( 231,000)
Developed Land ( acres) ( 926,000)
Total Daily Trips ( 29.1 million)
Daily Auto Trips ( 23.3 million)
Daily Transit Trips ( 1.9 million linked trips)
Daily Commercial Vehicle Trips ( trucks) ( 4.7 million)
Daily Non- Motorized Trips ( 3.9 million)
Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel ( 192.3 million)
Average Commute Duration1 ( 24.3 minutes)
Average Commute Distance2 ( 11.1 miles)
Coarse Particle ( PM10) Emissions ( 85 tons/ day)
Fine Particle ( PM2.5) Emissions ( 21 tons/ day)
CO2 Emissions ( 77,000 tons/ day)
26%
29%
53%
50%
7%
10%
37%
32%
75%
45%
51%
33%
7%
- 8%
29%
20%
- 14%
Travel Air Quality Demographic
M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
transportation costs decreasing. Also contribut-ing
to lower transportation costs is a predicted
drop in the number of vehicles per household
from 1.4 today to 1.3 in 2035.
Land use exerts a powerful influence on the
affordability of transportation. Total annual
transportation costs for all households will
be lower for those closer to the urban core
( as shown in the chart to the right). This is true
for all income levels, including the low- income
and moderately low- income segments of the
population ( as shown). By living close to jobs
and essential services, households can signifi-cantly
reduce their annual transportation costs,
demonstrating the economic benefits of more
compact growth patterns.
More Travel, More Congestion
Travel activity as reflected by daily auto trips
would increase by 32 percent and the amount
of vehicle miles traveled would grow by 33
percent. Both are slightly higher than the rate
of population increase, but lower than the
expected rate of employment growth. Daily
hours of vehicle delay would increase by
135 percent, which would boost average daily
delay per vehicle to 4.6 minutes ( from 2.7
minutes today). Daily transit trips would grow
by 75 percent, reflecting assumptions that
new population and employment growth will
be more focused in the urban core and along
transit corridors ( see chart on page 23).
A Mixed Forecast for Air Quality
Air quality conditions will change in the future
— ground- level ozone and greenhouse gas
emissions will decrease, but particulate matter
will increase by 2035. Emissions of the precur-sors
to ozone — reactive organic gases and
nitrogen oxides — will decrease by 71 percent
and 79 percent, respectively, due largely to
cleaner vehicle engines and fuels and reduced
emissions from industrial and commercial
sources.
Carbon dioxide emissions are projected to
decrease by 14 percent as vehicle and fuel
technologies improve due to stricter state and
federal mandates, as older fleets turn over,
and as individual attitudes and travel behaviors
change ( see chart on page 23). However, as
population grows and miles driven increases,
particulate matter emissions from tailpipes
and road dust also will rise, with a 20 percent
increase for finer particles ( PM2.5) and a 29 per-cent
increase from coarser particles ( PM10) in
the forecast.
24
Projected Annual Household Transportation Costs in 2035
Source: MTC
$ 25,000
$ 20,000
$ 15,000
$ 10,000
$ 5,000
$ 0
Income Level
Low- Income Moderately Low– Income All Households
Rural- Suburban
Dense Suburban
Urban Core
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N 2 0 3 5 P L A N 25
As with past long- range transportation plans,
the Transportation 2035 Plan uses the economic-demographic
forecasts produced by the
Association of Bay Area Governments ( ABAG).
The forecast current at the time of development
of this plan was ABAG’s Projections 2007.
Projections 2007 was designed to be a realistic
assessment of growth in the region, recognizing
emerging trends in markets, demographics and
local policies that promote more compact infill
development and transit- oriented development.
Areas at rail and ferry terminals and along
select transportation corridors are expected to
see an increasing proportion of the region’s
growth, a trend that will start slowly but will
build over time.
The emphasis on performance in the Transpor-tation
2035 Plan has influenced how future
long- range growth forecasts will be prepared.
Already, in its Projections 2009 forecast
( adopted in spring 2009), ABAG has identified
performance metrics, similar to the ones
adopted in this plan, and tested development
scenarios to gauge the magnitude of change
required to achieve regional targets. Future
long- range forecasts and demographic projec-tions
will build on this approach.
Jobs and Population Forecasts by Geographical Area
Bay Area Total in 2035 and Percent Change From 2005
Source: ABAG, Projections 2007
Percent Change
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
2,853,200
4,262,400
1,995,300
3,990,100
399,400
779,100
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Jobs
Population
Projecting Regional Growth
M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N 26 S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
Transportation 2035 Performance Objectives
Three Es
Economy
Reduce per- capita delay by 20 percent from today by 2035
Improve Maintenance
• Maintain pavement condition index ( PCI) of 75 or greater for
local streets and roads
• Distressed pavement condition lane- miles not to exceed 10 percent
of total state highway system
• Achieve an average age for all transit asset types that is no more
than 50 percent of their useful life
• Increase the average number of miles between service calls for
transit service in the region to 8,000 miles
Reduce Collisions/ Fatalities
• Reduce fatalities from motor vehicle collisions by 15 percent from today
by 2035
• Reduce bicycle and pedestrian fatalities attributed to motor vehicle
collisions by 25 percent ( each) from 2000 by 2035
• Reduce bicycle and pedestrian injuries attributed to motor vehicle
collisions by 25 percent ( each) from 2000 by 2035
Improve Regional Transportation Emergency Preparedness
• Conduct regional transportation exercise that tests emergency
response and coordination capabilities for special needs populations
• Improve the seismic safety of high- priority transportation facilities
• Increase the number of transportation agency employees trained in
security/ emergency awareness protocols
Reduce Vulnerability to Transportation Security Threats
• Increase the number of transportation agency employees trained in
security/ emergency awareness protocols
• Enhance or install critical infrastructure detection equipment on
high- priority transportation facilities
Environment
Reduce daily per- capita vehicle miles traveled ( VMT) by 10 percent
from today by 2035
Reduce Emissions
• Reduce emissions of fine particulates ( PM2.5) by 10 percent from today
by 2035
• Reduce emissions of coarse particulates ( PM10) by 45 percent from
today by 2035
• Reduce carbon dioxide ( CO2) emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels
by 2035
Equity
Decrease by 10 percent the combined share of low- income and
lower- middle- income residents’ household income consumed by trans-portation
and housing
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N 2 0 3 5 P L A N 27
Making Performance
The Objective
These trends sketch a statistical picture of the
Bay Area in the year 2035. It is not a complete
picture, but it does offer a baseline against
which to assess how the policies, investments
and planning decisions made in this plan may
affect the future. In this vein, the Transportation
2035 Plan explicitly employs a performance-based
approach, one that focuses on measurable
outcomes of potential investments and the
degree to which they support stated policies.
In early 2008, the Commission adopted a com-prehensive
set of performance objectives for the
plan ( see page 26).
So how will investments embodied in the
Transportation 2035 Plan — $ 218 billion worth
— improve the performance of the transporta-tion
network for Bay Area travelers? To answer
this question, MTC planners conducted a three-part
performance assessment to help inform and
evaluate investment decisions. During the fall
2007 visioning phase of plan development, we
used performance metrics to test “ what if” sce-narios
consisting of two distinct sets of strategies:
1) a set of three infrastructure packages; and
2) aggressive pricing and land- use policies
which, if adopted without modification, would
dramatically raise the cost of operating a private
vehicle and would concentrate most future
population growth near transit and in already-developed
parts of the region. In spring 2008,
we then conducted a project- level assessment
of over 700 candidate projects to ascertain how
they measured up in terms of cost- effectiveness
and goals achievement. As a final step in fall
2008, we evaluated how the plan’s investment
decisions ( detailed in Chapter 4 and listed
as projects in Appendix 1) would meet the
Transportation 2035 performance objectives.
The results of this final test are presented in
the following section. ( See the Performance
Assessment Report, listed in Appendix 2, for
complete information about the performance
evaluations and results.)
Putting the Plan
to the Test
In testing the performance of the Transporta-tion
2035 Plan, we must ask two key questions:
1) How far does the plan advance the region
toward meeting its ambitious targets?
2) How big are the remaining performance
gaps that we must fill?
MTC planners tested the plan investments
as a group by means of a computer model,
then compared results to the long- term trends
projected for given measures of performance
( such as greenhouse gas emissions), and to other
Transportation 2035 performance objectives.
For illustrative purposes, we present here results
of how the Transportation 2035 Plan performed
against several key performance objectives:
• reduce per- capita delay
• improve maintenance for transit and
local roadways
• reduce fine particulate emissions
• reduce carbon dioxide emissions
• reduce vehicle miles traveled
Strategic Investments Help
Reduce Congestion
The Transportation 2035 Plan will help reduce
freeway delay per person from a projected 72
hours a year to 47 hours a year. This is largely
a result of the plan’s investment in the Freeway
Performance Initiative ( FPI). FPI strategies such
as freeway ramp metering, changeable freeway
message signs and coordination of traffic signals
along adjacent arterials can significantly reduce
delay. The planned Bay Area Express Lane
Network and new transit capacity also will play
a role. Yet the impressive reduction in delay that
these investments achieve still falls short of the
performance objective to reduce congestion to
31 hours per person per year ( see chart top left
on page 29).
M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N 28 S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
Local Roadway Investment Maintains
Status Quo, Slows Downward Slide
The performance objective chosen for local road-way
maintenance — to reduce to 13 percent the
share of local roadways in poor or failed condi-tion
— represents a practical target to improve
the condition of our roads over the next 25
years. While it does not represent an optimal
state of good repair for the region’s roadways, the
objective was deemed achievable as an interim
step. Faced with competing needs for available
revenues, the Commission elected to direct
$ 7 billion in discretionary funds to local road-ways
( see Chapter 4 for details). This amount
will only allow us to maintain the current
state of repair, at which about 22 percent of
local roadways are in poor or failed condition
( see page 29, top center).
Transit Investment Fails to
Hold the Line Against Aging Assets
The Bay Area’s transit assets include transit
vehicles, railway tracks, stations and mainte-nance
facilities. The current average age of these
assets is estimated to be 74 percent of useful
life. If all assets were replaced on schedule at
the end of their useful lives, over time the
average age of all assets would fall to 50 percent
of useful life. Therefore, the 74 percent figure
means that the region is not replacing its assets
fast enough, and assets remain in service well
after they should be replaced.
The Commission committed $ 6.4 billion in
discretionary funds to the transit maintenance
program, which will allow the region to replace
all of its transit vehicles on time, but is not
sufficient to replace other types of transit assets
on schedule ( see Chapter 4 for details). Replace-ment
of assets such as stations, maintenance
facilities and service vehicles will be deferred,
requiring increasingly expensive maintenance
and repairs, and potentially reducing system
reliability and performance. The average age of
all of the region’s assets combined will continue
to increase, reaching an estimated 100 percent
of useful life by 2035. This is an improvement
over the prevailing trend ( see page 29, top
right), but the result falls far short of the Trans-portation
2035 performance objective.
Particulate Emissions Remain High
Of all the Transportation 2035 performance
objectives, the reduction of particulate emis-sions
will be the most difficult to achieve.
Particulate levels are a direct function of the
amount of driving, with road dust kicked up by
moving vehicles accounting for 60 to 80 percent
of particulate emissions from mobile sources.
Under the current trend, fine particulate
( PM2.5) emissions will grow to 21 tons per day
by 2035 from 17 tons per day in 2006. Given
a quarter- century of continued population
growth, infrastructure investments will not
decrease total miles driven enough to make a
significant dent in particulate emissions. The
Transportation 2035 Plan reduces PM2.5 by
about one ton per day, resulting in one- fifth of
the reduction needed to reach the target ( see
page 29, bottom left).
Plan Nudges Carbon Dioxide
Emissions in Right Direction
The future trend for transportation- related
carbon dioxide emissions is expected to move
in the right direction, though largely due to
advances in vehicle technologies and fuels man-dated
by state laws rather than infrastructure
investments. For its part, the Transportation
2035 Plan is projected to decrease daily carbon
dioxide emissions from 77,000 tons per day to
76,000 tons per day — just a 2 percent reduc-tion
compared to the prevailing trend ( see page
29, bottom center). This small reduction is due
largely to the fact that 81 percent of all resources
in the plan are devoted to operating and main-taining
the existing transportation network —
which neither worsens nor improves the Bay
Area’s carbon footprint. The bottom line is the
Transportation 2035 Plan falls well short of the
35 percent reduction that would be needed to
reach the objective of 50,000 tons per day.
Plan Barely Makes a Dent
in Reducing Miles Driven
The Bay Area’s very dynamism, as measured by
projected growth in both population and jobs,
poses a daunting challenge when it comes to
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N 2 0 3 5 P L A N 29
Annual Vehicle Hours of Delay per Capita
Vehicle Hours of Delay
75
65
55
45
35
25
Year
2005 2015 2025 2035
Transportation 2035
2035 Objective
Trend
Mileage in Poor Condition as Percentage of
Local Roadway Mileage
Local Streets and Roads
Year
50
40
30
20
10
2005 2015 2025 2035
Transportation 2035
2035 Objective1
Trend
Average Age of Assets as Percentage of
Useful Life2
Transit Maintenance
Year
130
120
80
60
110
100
90
70
50
40
2005 2015 2025 2035
2035 Objective
Transportation 2035
Trend
Tons per Day
PM2.5 Tons Per Day
Year
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
2005 2015 2025 2035
Transportation 2035
Trend
2035 Objective
Tons per Day ( x 1000)
Carbon Dioxide ( CO2) Emissions
Year
100
90
80
70
60
50
3
2005 2015 2025 2035
2035 Objective
Transportation 2035
Trend
Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled per Capita
Vehicle Miles Traveled
Year
22
21
20
19
18
2005 2015 2025 2035
2035 Objective
Transportation 2035
Trend
Source: MTC
1 Decrease mileage in poor condition to no more than 13 percent. This is equivalent to the adopted objective to increase the average pavement condition index to 76.
2 Includes all asset types.
3 Trend line from 2006 to 2035 is simplified. Passenger and light- duty vehicle fuel economy improvements required by AB 32 are phased in between 2009 and 2020.
CO2 will continue to increase until about 2010, with a gradual decrease to 2035 as AB 1493 standards phase in and the existing vehicle fleet turns over with cleaner vehicles.
Putting the Plan to the Test
M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N 30 S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
reducing the number of miles driven by vehi-cles
in the region. As shown in the bottom
right chart on page 29, the Transportation 2035
Plan makes only a negligible difference in this
area, reducing daily vehicle miles traveled per
person from 21.3 to 21.2. This is not within
the reach of the objective of 18.2 vehicle miles
per person. This result would seem to show
the limitations of infrastructure improvements
as a means to attain this particular objective.
Results Show No
Easy Answers
Assessing the performance objectives in light
of future baseline conditions in 2035 and the
palette of Transportation 2035 investment and
policy strategies, we see that the challenges
before us are sobering. While the targets call
for dramatic improvements over the status quo,
most of the trend lines indicate conditions will
worsen significantly over the next 25 years.
And while large- scale infrastructure investment
and aggressive policy choices can move the Bay
Area closer to some of the plan’s long- term
goals, others remain stubbornly out of reach.
But where earlier plans sought merely to slow
the rate of our transportation network’s deteri-oration,
the Transportation 2035 Plan does dare
to imagine actually reversing these trends.
Within the constraints of this Transportation
2035 Plan, the Commission does indeed begin
to take a number of bold steps towards change.
These include doubling the Transportation for
Livable Communities program that will support
focused growth, and building the Bay Area
Express Lane Network as a way to introduce
road pricing at a regional scale. To reduce
delay and traffic congestion, MTC, Caltrans
and other partners will implement a new
Freeway Performance Initiative. To encourage
more walking, bicycling and transit use, the
Commission reaffirms its commitment to
deliver the Resolution 3434 Regional Transit
Expansion Program and the Regional Bikeway
Network. Perhaps no investment recognizes
the need for a multifaceted effort better than
the multiagency Transportation Climate Action
Campaign, which encourages behavior changes
and funds innovative projects such as the
Safe Routes to Schools and the Safe Routes to
Transit programs.
As we move to implement these Transportation
2035 programs — and as we strive to fashion
new initiatives in the years ahead — we must
keep in mind the results of the comprehensive
performance assessment work conducted for
this plan. The lessons learned from this analysis
are as follows:
Limits of Infrastructure
Infrastructure improvements alone, whether
substantial investments in transit or roadways,
will not move the region significantly closer
to the goals.
Power of Pricing and Land Use
Policy approaches, such as the pricing and land-use
alternatives tested initially, have a much
bigger effect and will be critical to advancing
toward the objectives. But while pricing strate-gies
( though likely at lower price levels than
those assumed in our analysis) could be imple-mented
in the near term, aggressive land- use
policies would likely take longer to win local
approval. And the benefits of land- use changes
would not be realized until some years after
implementation.
Need for Technology and
Behavior Change
Yet even the combination of infrastructure
investment and aggressive policy choices would
be insufficient to meet many of the region’s
long- term goals, particularly those involving
greenhouse gas and particulate emissions.
To reach all the objectives, additional strategies
will be necessary in most cases. These could
include technology advances to improve fuel
economy, incentives or regulations to increase
telecommuting, and other steps to reduce
overall driving. The Bay Area certainly will
have to forge new patterns of growth, embrace
new ways of traveling, and discard many old
assumptions if we are to sustain the region’s
economic vitality, maintain our mobility and
preserve our quality of life. Our analysis clearly
demonstrates that while change is healthy, it
can be painful too.
Change is the law of life, and those who look only to
the past or present are certain to miss the future.
JOHN F. KENNEDY
“ ”
Predicting the financial future is a difficult and rather speculative exercise,
even in the most placid of periods. This point needs no underscoring today,
in the wake of the serious financial crisis that started on Wall Street and
spread to markets all around the globe during the fall of 2008. Still, one of
the core functions of a long- range plan is to forecast how much money
will be available to support the region’s surface transportation investments
over the next 25 years. In doing this, planners must “ financially constrain”
the plan, to ensure that the program of projects adopted will not exceed
reasonably foreseeable future revenues. For this Transportation 2035 Plan,
MTC’s financial model takes a realistic approach. We contacted partner
agencies for the latest estimates of local funds, examined historical growth
trends of traditional and nontraditional revenue sources, and performed
retrospective analyses of predecessor long- range plans to fine- tune our
financial assumptions.
The nuts and bolts of the financial forecasts and plan expenditures are
detailed in this chapter. However, the actual investment decisions made by
the Commission to support pressing maintenance, system efficiency and
expansion needs are presented in the “ Investments” chapter, which follows
this one.
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N 2 0 3 5 P L A N
Finances
31
M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
Financial Assumptions
In the 1990s, two landmark bills — the Inter-modal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
of 1991 ( ISTEA) and the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century ( TEA 21, enacted in
1998) — helped reshape the federal surface
transportation program to meet the nation’s
changing transportation needs. The Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users ( SAFETEA),
signed into law in 2005, builds on this firm
foundation, supplying the funds and refining the
framework for investments needed to maintain
and grow our vital transportation infrastructure.
In compliance with SAFETEA, this Transporta-tion
2035 Plan includes a financial plan demon-strating
how the program of projects can be
implemented, using resources that are reason-ably
expected to be available. Further, federal
law now requires that revenues and project cost
estimates must use an inflation rate to reflect
“ year of expenditure dollars.” This plan does
that. Past long- range plans have shown these
figures in current, or nominal, dollars.
SAFETEA expires in 2009. Congress has begun
drafting a new, multiyear act that could make
sweeping changes in the way that transporta-tion
is funded at the federal level. However,
for purposes of this financial plan, the best
currently available financial assumptions were
used in preparing the 25- year revenue projec-tions.
Specifically, revenue projections for
federal transportation programs were made
based on the existing structure of federally
funded programs.
The financial assumptions for the financially
constrained Transportation 2035 Plan are
as follows:
• The federal highway program is assumed to
continue in its current form. Surface Trans-portation
Program ( STP), Congestion Mitiga-tion
and Air Quality Improvement ( CMAQ)
Program and Highway Bridge funds are
assumed to grow at a rate of 4 percent annu-ally.
Base year revenue is set at the SAFETEA
nationally authorized level for fiscal year
( FY) 2008- 09, and the Bay Area is projected
to receive its historical proportionate share of
these programs.
• Federal Transit Administration programs —
Sections 5307, 5309, 5310, 5311, 5316 and
5317— are based on the FY 2008- 09 nation-ally
authorized levels and are assumed to
grow at a rate of 4 percent annually. The Bay
Area is assumed to receive its historical pro-portionate
share.
32
• State gas tax subventions and the Surface
Transportation Improvement Program ( STIP)
revenue are assumed to maintain the current
structure and distribution formula, as laid
out in Senate Bill 45 ( 1997), over the 25- year
period. Revenue projections and regional
distribution shares for state funds are based
on FY 2007- 08 levels, and projections for
fuel price and consumption growth are based
on estimates developed by the Legislative
Analyst’s Office in 2007. Revenue estimates
and regional shares for STIP funds are also
consistent with the state’s adopted 2008 STIP
Fund Estimate.
• State Transit Assistance ( STA) revenue is
also based on current funding formulas and
projections for fuel price and consumption
growth developed by the Legislative Analyst’s
Office in 2007. However, the 25- year projec-tion
for STA revenue takes into account two
financial adjustments. The STA revenue
projection includes funds generated by the
growth in sales tax on gasoline, which are
commonly known as “ spillover” funds. It also
reflects the state Legislature’s suspension of
the STA program and spillover funds from
FY 2009– 10 through FY 2012– 13; however,
the projection assumes reinstatement of
the STA program and spillover funds in
FY 2013– 14.
• State Highway Operations and Protection
Program ( SHOPP) revenues are based on
funding levels and growth rates assumed in
the 2008 STIP Fund Estimate. The share of
SHOPP funds assumed to flow to the Bay Area
over the 25- year period is based on historical
expenditure averages as reported in the 2006
SHOPP plan.
• Proceeds from Proposition 42 — the 5 percent
sales tax on gasoline that is dedicated for
transportation — augment funding for STA,
STIP, and local streets and roads. Projected
revenue from Proposition 42 is consistent
with the assumptions on fuel cost and gaso-line
consumption growth provided by the
Legislative Analyst’s Office.
• Proposition 1B, the Highway Safety, Traffic
Reduction, Air Quality and Port Security Bond
Act, approved by voters in 2006, provides
funding for a variety of transportation pro-grams.
Senate Bill 88 ( 2007) lays out the
structure and distribution method for several
of the bond programs. For those programs
that do not currently have a structure or dis-tribution
formula in place on which to base
assumptions regarding the region’s share of
these funds, it was assumed that the Bay
Area’s share of the funding would be propor-tionate
to the region’s share of population
relative to the rest of the state.
• Bridge toll revenues are based on projected
travel demand on the region’s seven state-owned
toll bridges. Toll- paid travel on the
bridges is projected to grow at varied annual
rates of between 0.3 and 0.5 percent over the
25- year period.
• Bay Area Express Lane Network revenues
included in the financially constrained plan
represent projected net revenues available for
other investments after financing the comple-tion
of the network and funding its operations
and maintenance costs over the 25- year
period. The revenue estimates are from the
Bay Area HOT Network Study, completed in
December 2008.
• Revenues from Assembly Bill 1107 ( 1977), the
half- cent sales tax for the three BART counties
of Alameda, Contra Costa and San Francisco,
are assumed to grow at a rate derived by
taking a weighted average of recent historical
growth in sales tax revenue generations
within the three counties.
• Transportation Development Act ( TDA) rev-enue,
derived from the statewide quarter- cent
sales tax, is based on a five- year historical
average of funding levels in each county. The
growth rates assumed for TDA revenues in
Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco,
San Mateo, Santa Clara and Sonoma counties
are based on estimates provided by the respec-tive
sales tax authorities in those counties.
The growth rate used for Napa and Solano
counties is the average of the growth rates in
the other seven Bay Area counties.
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N 2 0 3 5 P L A N 33
M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
• County and transit district transportation
sales tax revenues in Alameda, Contra Costa,
Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara
and Sonoma counties are based on estimates
provided by the respective sales tax authori-ties
in those counties. Measures that are
set to expire within the 25- year period are
assumed not to be renewed. Where they do
not currently exist, transportation sales tax
measures were not assumed in the financially
constrained plan.
• Local streets and roads revenue includes
revenue made available from local sources
( not including county transportation sales tax
measures) and Proposition 1B funding specific
to street and road maintenance purposes.
Local revenue estimates were based on infor-mation
provided to MTC through a compre-hensive
survey conducted of local agencies.
A regionwide growth rate based on historical
average was applied to these revenues over
the 25- year period.
• Operator- specific revenue projections including
transit fares, Golden Gate Bridge tolls, AC
Transit and BART property taxes, AC Transit
parcel taxes, BART seismic bond proceeds,
and San Francisco Municipal Transportation
Agency general fund and parking revenue,
have been provided by the respective operators.
• Proposition 1A ( 2008), the Safe, Reliable
High- Speed Passenger Train Bond Act, author-izes
$ 10 billion in general obligation rail bond
proceeds to help finance construction of a
high- speed rail link between San Francisco
and San Diego. Estimates of the Bay Area’s
share of revenue from Proposition 1A include
$ 408 million from the act’s formula- based
local connectivity program. The region’s share
was calculated based on 2007 data from the
National Transit Database on track mileage,
revenue vehicle miles and annual passenger
trips for the region’s rail operators. It was
also assumed that the region would receive
12.5 percent, or $ 1.13 billion, of the $ 9 billion
in nonformula- based bond funding that will
be available statewide. The region’s share
was estimated based on the percentage of the
entire high- speed rail project ($ 40 billion in
total) that is estimated to be invested in the
Bay Area.
Furthermore, in February 2009, President
Obama signed into law ( see photo above) the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 ( ARRA), which contained an $ 8 billion
appropriation for high- speed rail. Based on
California’s demonstrated commitment to
high- speed rail ( as evidenced by the passage
of Proposition 1A) and its head start on
34
selecting routes, it is assumed that the state
and, as a result, the Bay Area, are well situated
to receive a significant portion of the ARRA
high- speed rail funds. The revenue estimates
assume that the Bay Area will receive about
19 percent, or $ 1.5 billion, of the total nation-wide
appropriation.
• The inclusion of “ Anticipated” revenues in the
financially constrained plan strikes a balance
between the past practice of only including
specific revenue sources currently in existence
or statutorily authorized, and the more flexi-ble
federal requirement of revenues that are
“ reasonably expected to be available” within
the plan period.
MTC performed a retrospective analysis of
projections for predecessor long- range plans,
including a review of unexpected revenues
that had come to the region but had not been
anticipated or included in these projections.
Over a 15- year analysis period, the San Fran-cisco
Bay Area received an annualized amount
of roughly $ 400 million ( in 2008 dollars) from
these “ unanticipated” fund sources. These
revenue sources include Traffic Congestion
Relief Plan, Proposition 42, nonformula fed-eral
funds, and Proposition 1B funding. For
each fund source, only the amount distributed
to the Bay Area was included.
Based on this retrospective analysis, MTC
believes it is reasonable to anticipate that
additional revenues will become available to
the region over the course of the Transpor-tation
2035 Plan period. MTC generated an
estimate of these anticipated revenues by
projecting the $ 400 million figure forward
at a 3 percent annual growth rate. To be con-servative,
these revenues are not assumed in
the first five years of the plan.
Additional detail on Transportation 2035
financial assumptions and funding amounts
is available in the Project Notebook, listed in
Appendix 2.
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N 2 0 3 5 P L A N 35
Projected 25- Year Plan
Revenues
1
2
3
4
5
Billions Percent
of Dollars of Total
1 Local $ 101 46%
2 Regional $ 31 14%
3 State $ 45 21%
4 Federal $ 28 13%
5 Anticipated $ 13 6%
Total Plan Revenues $ 218 100%
Transportation 2035 Plan
Expenditures
1
2
3
7
6
4
8 910
5
Billions Percent
of Dollars of Total
Maintenance
1 Transit $ 111 51%
2 Highway $ 22 10%
3 Local Roads $ 24 11%
System Efficiency
4 Transit $ < 1 < 1%
5 Highway $ 3 1%
6 Local Roads $ 17 8%
Expansion
7 Transit $ 30 14%
8 Highway $ 8 4%
9 Local Roads $ 3 1%
10 Risk Contingency $ < 1 < 1%
Total Expenditures $ 218 100%
M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
Transportation 2035
Budget
Applying these assumptions to the main trans-portation
revenue sources yields a 25- year reve-nue
estimate of $ 218 billion. This becomes the
budget for the financially constrained plan. As
shown in the “ Revenues” pie chart on page 35,
nearly half of these funds are from local sources,
primarily transit fares, dedicated sales tax pro-grams,
and state and county tax subventions to
local streets and roads. Making up the remain-der
of the pie are state and federal revenues
( mainly derived from gas taxes), regional sources
( mostly bridge tolls), and “ Anticipated” revenues
( see previous page for explanation).
Prioritizing these funds for projects that offer
the highest performance “ bang for our buck”
is a necessary first step of this plan. Given the
many competing needs — whether for system
maintenance, efficiency or expansion — the full
impact of working within a $ 218 billion budget
can only be appreciated when matching avail-able
revenues against the costs incurred in
managing a mature, but growing, transportation
system. The tradeoffs that the Commission had
to consider in making its investment decisions
were tough to say the least, especially since the
shortfalls for replacing transit capital assets
and maintaining local streets and roads have
doubled since the last plan ( after adjusting for
the conversion to escalated dollars).
36
The Federal Highway Administration and Federal
Transit Administration encouraged MTC to take
a more detailed look at the cost estimates in
the long- range plan to address concerns about
financial plans for large- scale transportation
projects. Accordingly, MTC conducted a risk
assessment to identify and quantify high risks
for the program of projects included in the
Transportation 2035 Plan, and to determine the
appropriate amount of funding reserve needed
to assure successful completion of projects.
MTC used a probabilistic risk model to calculate
the risks associated with project costs, scopes
and schedules, taking into account project
unknowns and unanticipated expenses. In its
evaluation, MTC found that a majority of the
project sponsors accounted adequately for
risks by setting aside the appropriate level of
project contingency for each phase of their
project ( environmental, design, right- of- way
and construction). However, to protect against
cases where project risks might not have been
adequately or accurately estimated, the
Commission decided to add a risk contingency
at the plan level. Evaluation results suggested
a minimum risk contingency of $ 200 million
would be appropriate, and the Commission
included this amount in the Transportation
2035 budget to cover any cost overruns,
schedule conflicts and other unknowns that
may occur during project delivery for nearer-term
projects.
Transportation 2035 Risk Assessment
The $ 218 billion in plan expenditures support the
Three Es of Economy, Environment and Equity,
and attempt to foster the kinds of changes envi-sioned
in Transportation 2035.
Support for Public Transit
Benefits Economy and Environment
Almost two- thirds of plan expenditures are spent
on public transit ( see pie chart top middle) in an
effort to reduce vehicle miles traveled, conges-tion
on Bay Area freeways, and greenhouse gas
and particulate matter emissions.
Investments Sustain Urban Core
Over 80 percent of the plan expenditures go
toward maintaining and operating the existing
transportation system. Most of our transporta-tion
infrastructure is located in the urban core,
and funding system maintenance and operations
helps support the vitality of the urban core
( see pie chart top right).
Plan Fosters Focused Growth
Reflecting Transportation 2035’ s commitment to
focused growth, 95 percent of plan expenditures
are directed to maintenance and transit expan-sion,
with another 2 percent ($ 4 billion) being
directed to bicycle and pedestrian improvements.
( See pie chart top right.) This hefty financial
investment supports the efforts of FOCUS to
direct more housing and jobs in a network of
transit- connected, bicycle- friendly and walkable
neighborhoods, primarily located in the region’s
existing urban core.
Transit Promotes Equity and Access
Almost two- thirds of plan expenditures go to proj-ects
that improve transit services ( see pie chart
top middle). Directing a majority of our funds to
transit maintenance and operations supports equi-table
access because the transit network largely
provides lifeline services, and transit expansion
is occurring in or near communities where low-income
and minority residents are concentrated.
Climate- Friendly Investments
Dominate Spending
The overwhelming share of plan expenditures —
97 percent — goes to support maintenance and
operations, transit expansion, and bicycle and
pedestrian improvements. These directly support
the regional effort to respond responsibly to
climate change. Many of the discrete investments
in the plan are climate- friendly and aim to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from transportation
sources.
Plan Expenditures by Mode
1
3
2
Billions Percent
of Dollars of Total
1 Transit $ 141 65%
2 Roads and Bridges $ 73 33%
3 Bicycle, Pedestrian & Other* $ 4 2%
Total Expenditures $ 218 100%
Plan Investments Address Core Concerns
Plan Expenditures by Function
1
2
3 4
Billions Percent
of Dollars of Total
1 Maintenance and Operations $ 177 81%
2 Transit Expansion $ 30 14%
3 Road Expansion $ 7 3%
4 Bicycle, Pedestrian & Other* $ 4 2%
Total Expenditures $ 218 100%
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N 2 0 3 5 P L A N 37
*“ Other” includes $ 400 million for Lifeline Transportation serving low- income travelers and $ 400 million for the Transportation Climate Action Campaign.
M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
Revenues projected to be available over the
25- year Transportation 2035 Plan period are
characterized as either Committed Funds
or Discretionary Funds. Committed Funds
are funds that have been reserved by law for
specific uses, or allocated by MTC action
( prior to the development of the Transportation
2035 Plan). These would include voter- approved
funding mechanisms at both the local and
regional level, and certain state and federal
funds. ( The plan’s treatment of these funds is
consistent with MTC policy concerning prior
commitments, as adopted in MTC Resolution
3868.) Discretionary Funds are moneys avail-able
to MTC ( and not already programmed as
Committed Funds) for assignment to projects
via the Transportation 2035 Plan planning
process. Of the $ 218 billion in projected Trans-portation
2035 revenue, $ 186 billion ( 85 per-cent)
is characterized as Committed Funds.
The remaining $ 32 billion ( 15 percent) is discre-tionary
revenue ( mostly state and federal funds)
that the Commission may direct to fully fund
existing projects or support new investments as
detailed in this plan.
The spending recommendations proposed by
the Transportation 2035 Plan are focused on
maintaining and operating the existing trans-portation
system efficiently and pursuing
investments that maximize system efficiency
and support strategic expansions where needed.
As shown in the pie chart to the right on page 35,
$ 157 billion of the budget — 72 percent — will
go toward ongoing maintenance and rehabilita-tion
of the region’s transportation infrastructure.
The remaining expenditures include another
$ 20 billion ( 9 percent) toward system opera-tions
and efficiency projects and $ 41 billion
( 19 percent) to expand our highways, transit
and local roads. A $ 200 million risk contingency
is added for the first time as part of the plan
expenditures for purposes of assuring successful
delivery of nearer- term projects ( see “ Transpor-tation
2035 Risk Assessment,” on page 36).
Though the funding picture presented here
covers most of the region’s projected transpor-tation
expenses, it does not capture the entire
“ universe” of transportation spending in the
region. For example, the $ 218 billion does not
include airports, seaports, and private freight
and rail operations. Neither does it include the
large personal expenditures on transportation
by individuals, largely through out- of- pocket
costs for automobiles — purchase price,
gasoline, insurance, maintenance costs, etc.
In the following chapter, “ Investments,” we take
a closer look at the key funding decisions and
key program emphases in the Transportation
2035 Plan.
38
You must be the change you wish to see in the world.
MOHANDAS GANDHI “ ”
Keep Our System in a State of Good Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Lead the Charge on Climate Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Maximize System Performance Through Technology . . . . . . 52
Price Highway Travel Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Provide Equitable Access to Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Keep Walking and Rolling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Take Bold Steps Toward Focused Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Moving Goods in Northern California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Deliver the Next Generation of Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Investments
In crafting an investment program for the Transportation 2035 Plan,
the Commission had to grapple with a number of important, but often
competing, questions. How much do we invest in the maintenance, system
efficiency and expansion of our regional transportation system when needs
exceed available revenue? What are the consequences of investing in one
transportation priority but not another? How should we weigh specific
project performance characteristics in assembling a package of investments
to address the plan’s various goals?
The Commission proceeded to identify the investment plan in a systematic
way, starting with a performance assessment of individual projects, followed
by investment tradeoff discussions among transportation partners and
stakeholders. The financially constrained investment strategy ultimately
adopted by the Commission should help the region make progress on several
key fronts, but further progress will be needed.
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N 2 0 3 5 P L A N
Investments
39
M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
Assessing Project Performance
MTC performed a detailed assessment of some
700 projects proposed for consideration in the
financially constrained Transportation 2035
Plan. The two- part project assessments included
a quantitative appraisal to measure benefit/ cost
with respect to the performance objectives, and
a qualitative policy assessment to reflect the
somewhat broader considerations embodied in
the Three Es and plan goals.
The purpose of this project- by- project assess-ment
was to identify matches and outliers —
projects that most strongly support the Trans-portation
2035 Plan’s performance objectives
and goals, and those that most obviously do
not. The Commission’s intent was to include
the highest- performing projects ( those that both
yield a high financial return for each dollar
invested and address multiple goals), and to
exclude the lowest- performing projects ( those
that cost more than the benefits produced and
address only a few goals). As shown in the
graph to the right, high performers included
investments such as the Freeway Performance
Initiative, Bay Area Express Lane Network,
and transit efficiency projects; while lower
performers were found among some freeway
and expressway widenings, freeway- to- freeway
interchanges, and even regional projects like
lifeline transportation and climate protection
programs.
The results of the performance assessment
guided the Commission in making tradeoffs
among competing priorities vying for funding
and inclusion in the financially constrained plan.
But performance results were not the only factor.
The Commission also considered input from
our transportation partners and stakeholders,
and took into account local priorities and the
regional need for specialized programs focused
on lifeline transportation, bicycle use, climate
40
Project Performance
Source: MTC
1 2 3 4
Transportation for
Livable Communities
Bay Area Express Lane Network
Freeway Performance Initiative
High
(> 10)
Medium
High
( 5- 9)
Medium
( 1- 4)
Low
(< 1)
Benefit/ Cost
Project Mode Annual Project Benefit
( Millions 2007 $)
Road Transit Other >$ 1,000 $ 100-$ 1,000 $ 26- 99 $ 0- 25
HOV Lanes
Freeway- to- Freeway
Interchanges
Climate Protection
and Emissions Reduction
Lifeline
Freight
Arterial
Improvements
Freeway and
Expressway
Widening
Transit
Efficiency
Projects
Transit
Expansion
Regional
Bikeway Network
Number of Goals Addressed
Maintenance
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N 2 0 3 5 P L A N 41
protection and other policy considerations.
In some cases, these policy considerations
outweighed poor performance results.
Ultimately, the Commission found that using
a performance- based approach to defining
the investment priorities not only made good
analytic and policy sense but also framed
the policy discussion and decision- making
process. See the Performance Assessment Report
( as described in Appendix 2) for more details.
Investing in Change
Over the 25- year time span of this long- range
plan, MTC estimates that $ 218 billion will be
spent on transportation in the Bay Area. In addi-tion
to the $ 186 billion committed primarily to
maintaining and operating our existing regional
transportation system, Transportation 2035
sets change in motion with $ 32 billion of new,
discretionary investments — fresh ideas, clever
innovations and bold initiatives — that will
improve travel in the region and overall quality
of life. These Transportation 2035 investments
are displayed in the table to the left.
The multimillion dollar investments made in
the Transportation 2035 Plan are set forth in
this chapter, presented in broad, thematic
groupings. Our intent is to highlight key invest-ments
that maintain and expand our transit
systems, keep our roadways in a state of good
repair, respond to environmental and land- use
changes, and maximize mobility and accessibil-ity
for all transportation users. Individual
projects ( listed by county) can be found in
Appendix 1. Source: MTC
Summary of Discretionary Funding ( With Remaining Shortfalls)
In billions of year- of- expenditure dollars
Committed Discretionary Remaining
Total Need Funds Funds Shortfall
Maintenance
Local Streets and Roads Maintenance $ 34.5 $ 16.3 $ 7.0 $ 11.2
Transit Capital Replacement $ 40.3 $ 16.7 $ 6.4 $ 17.2
Transit Operations $ 98.0 $ 90.0 $ - $ 8.0
State Highway Maintenance $ 17.0 $ 4.0 $ - $ 13.0
Efficiency
Lifeline Transportation Program $ 0.7 $ 0.3 $ 0.4 $ -
Regional Bicycle Program $ 1.0 $ - $ 1.0 $ -
Transportation Climate Action Campaign $ 0.4 $ - $ 0.4 $ -
Planning Funds $ 0.3 $ - $ 0.3 $ -
Transportation for Livable Communities $ 2.2 $ - $ 2.2 $ -
Freeway Performance Initiative $ 1.6 $ - $ 1.6 $ -
Expansion
Transit and Roadway Expansion* $ - $ - $ 12.1 $ -
Risk Contingency $ 0.2 $ - $ 0.2 $ -
Total $ 196.2 $ 127.3 $ 31.6 $ 49.4
* Includes $ 6.1 billion in net Bay Area Express Lane Network revenue
Change in Motion
To sustain vital Bay Area transportation infra-structure,
the Transportation 2035 Plan:
• Commits $ 7 billion in discretionary funds
to prevent further deterioration of local
streets and roads. This is a break- even
move that will help cities and counties keep
pavement in the same “ fair” condition as it
is now, but will not make it easier to reduce
maintenance backlogs or meet their
improvement targets.
• Dedicates $ 6.4 billion in discretionary
funds for transit capital expenses around
the Bay Area, covering the entire short-fall
for bus, railcar and ferry replacement,
but just one- quarter of the shortfall for
other high- priority investments. To handle
$ 8 billion in anticipated operating short-falls,
transit agencies will have to increase
revenues and improve the efficiency of
their systems. A prime focus of regional
advocacy efforts will be to generate addi-tional
revenues for transit operations.
• Leaves a $ 13 billion shortfall for state high-way
maintenance. For financing highway
upkeep, the Commission believes that
responsibility rests with Caltrans, which owns
and operates the state highway system.
M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
Keep Our System in
a State of Good Repair
Local Streets and Roads
The strength of the Bay Area’s transportation
network lies in its local streets and roads —
and the bridges, sidewalks, curbs and gutters,
wheelchair ramps, bike paths, traffic signals
and storm drains that go with them. But this
intricate network of arterials, collectors and
local roads is crumbling under the weight
of decades of underinvestment. The 25- year
pavement and nonpavement maintenance needs
for the Bay Area total $ 34.5 billion. Committed
revenues over the same period of time are
expected to cover $ 16.3 billion, or less than
50 percent of the need, leaving more than $ 18
billion in shortfalls. The Transportation 2035
Plan directs $ 7 billion in discretionary funds
to address, but not close, this funding gap.
Funding for local road maintenance typically
comes from a range of sources, including state
gasoline taxes, county sales taxes, and local
sources such as city and county general funds,
bonds and traffic- impact fees. But as the need
for maintenance grows, the available funding
is shrinking. The state gas tax loses an average
3 percent of its purchasing power each year
due to inflation. General fund contributions are
declining due to increased competition from
other pressing needs such as public safety and
health care. County transportation sales taxes
typically dedicate less than 25 percent of
revenues to local street and road maintenance.
To help cities and counties wisely use scarce
roadway maintenance dollars, MTC advocates
preventive maintenance as the most cost- effec-tive
way to extend the serviceability of local
streets. Experience shows that delayed mainte-nance
leads to even costlier rehabilitation.
42
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N 2 0 3 5 P L A N 43
Indeed, a municipality that spends $ 1 on
timely maintenance to keep a section of road-way
in good condition would have to spend
$ 5 to restore the same roadway if the pavement
is allowed to deteriorate to the point where
major rehabilitation is necessary ( see graph at
bottom right).
Despite MTC’s emphasis on preventive mainte-nance,
the region’s backlog of needed repairs
likely will more than triple over the next 25
years as roadways deteriorate faster than cities
and counties are able to keep pace. Spending
on street and road maintenance would have to
increase by nearly 70 percent during this time
just to maintain current conditions. The magni-tude
of the combined regional funding shortfall
indicates many cities and counties will have to
defer needed maintenance on some roadways,
thus increasing overall costs.
Transit
Buses, trains, ferries, light- rail vehicles, cable
cars and streetcars not only provide mobility for
people without cars — including those who are
low- income, elderly, disabled or too young to
drive — they also provide a viable alternative
to driving for hundreds of thousands of area
residents who do own cars. By reducing the
number of vehicles on the roads, public transit
helps to fight congestion and curb greenhouse
gas emissions.
Solano
Napa
Marin
Sonoma
Alameda
San Mateo
Santa Clara
Contra Costa
San Francisco
Region Total
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Road Maintenance Expenditures by Bay Area County, 2009 – 2033
Ranked by Relative Size of Shortfall
Dollar amounts in millions; Projected Revenue does not include Transportation 2035 discretionary funds.
Percent
$ 1,843
$ 881
$ 900
$ 2,140
$ 3,759
$ 1,586
$ 3,746
$ 1,904
$ 1,439
$ 18,198
$ 716
$ 403
$ 577
$ 1,430
$ 2,612
$ 1,503
$ 4,432
$ 2,458
$ 2,123
$ 16,254
Total Need
$ 2,559
$ 1,284
$ 1,477
$ 3,570
$ 6,371
$ 3,089
$ 8,178
$ 4,362
$ 3,562
$ 34,452
Projected Revenue Shortfall Source: MTC
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Failed
0 5 10 15 20
Pavement Condition Over Time
Years
75% of life
12% of life
40% drop
in quality
Will cost
$ 5 here
* Pavement wear varies depending on traffic, climate, pavement design, etc. Source: MTC
*
40% drop
in quality
$ 1 for
renovation
here
Condition of Bay Area
pavement today
M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
Yet despite the transit network’s importance,
maintaining and sustaining the network is an
unending struggle. The cost of buying the fuel
and paying the drivers, mechanics, dispatchers
and others necessary to operate a transit system
— and paying for the replacement of buses,
train cars, tracks, fare machines and other capi-tal
equipment — far outpaces available funds.
And just as with local streets and roads, delayed
maintenance of the transit system leads to even
costlier rehabilitation down the road. So the
Commission has made funding for transit
vehicles and fixed guideway replacement and
rehabilitation a higher investment priority than
proposed service expansion.
Over the next 25 years, operating and capital
replacement costs for Bay Area transit providers
are projected to total $ 138 billion. This includes
$ 98 billion in operating costs plus $ 40 billion
for capital replacement. But dedicated revenues
over the same period, which do not include
discretionary funding directed by the Transpor-tation
2035 Plan, are expected to total only
$ 107 billion ($ 90 billion for operations and
$ 17 billion for capital). The result is $ 31 billion
in initial unfunded needs.
The Transportation 2035 Plan helps to address
transit capital needs with an investment of
$ 6.4 billion in discretionary funds, leaving a
remaining shortfall of $ 25 billion ($ 8 billion for
operations, and $ 17 billion for capital).
44
Small Operators
AC Transit
BART
Caltrain
GGBHTD**
SamTrans
Muni
VTA**
* Total transit capital replacement needs are estimated based on data available from each operator at the time of the analysis. Commission policy that directs
regional discretionary funding to cover the shortfall may take into account differences in 25- year projected shortfalls and needs identified in the near term.
** VTA = Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority; GGBHTD = Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District
Transit Capital Replacement Costs by Operator, 2009 – 2033
Dollar amounts in billions; Projected Revenue does not include Transportation 2035 discretionary funds.
Dollars
Projected Revenue Shortfall
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Source: MTC
Total Need*
Region Total = $ 40.3
$ 2.2
$ 1.7
$ 15.1
$ 3.5
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 11.4
$ 4.4
Small Operators
AC Transit
BART
Caltrain
GGBHTD**
SamTrans
Muni
VTA**
* Total transit operating needs are estimated based on data available from each operator at the time of the analysis.
** VTA = Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority; GGBHTD = Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District
Transit Operating Costs by Operator, 2009 – 2033
Dollar amounts in billions; Projected Revenue does not include Transportation 2035 discretionary funds.
Dollars
Projected Revenue Shortfall
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
Source: MTC
Total Need*
Region Total = $ 98.0
$ 7.4
$ 11.7
$ 22.1
$ 3.5
$ 2.9
$ 6.8
$ 29.0
$ 14.6
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N 2 0 3 5 P L A N 45
The rising cost of transit operations is driven
in large part by soaring fuel and health care
expenses. On the capital side, two key points
stand out:
• Muni and BART carry the largest number of
Bay Area transit riders, and have by far the
largest capital replacement needs. Together,
these operators account for some $ 27 billion,
or nearly two- thirds of the region’s 25- year
transit capital needs. And the agencies’ com-bined
$ 17 billion capital shortfall makes
up almost 75 percent of the regional total
( before taking into account Transportation
2035 discretionary funds).
• Many of the Bay Area’s transit capital needs
— and shortfalls — are for assets that receive
high marks from the region’s Transit Capital
Priorities policy scoring system, which is
used to rank transit projects that compete for
federal transit money. These high- priority
investments include revenue vehicles ( buses,
rail cars and ferries), track, bridges, tunnels,
train control and power systems, and com-munications
systems. Total need for such
investments comes to $ 29 billion over the
next 25 years. Yet even if all dedicated transit
capital revenues were spent on these projects,
the region would still face a $ 13 billion short-fall
for these high- priority projects.
State Highways
California’s 50,000 lane- mile state highway
system is the foundation on which the vitality
of California’s economy is built, linking people
and goods with intermodal transportation facili-ties,
growing metropolitan centers, and major
international airports and ports. Our state high-way
system is a transportation resource valued
in excess of $ 300 billion.
Much of this system was built in the 1950s,
1960s and early 1970s to serve the growing
California population and economy. Today, some
of these infrastructure assets are aging beyond
their useful life and in need of rehabilitation
and reconstruction. Nearly 15,000 lane miles
of the state highway system are distressed such
that the pavement is of poor structural condi-tion
and poor ride quality. Increases in vehicle
travel and goods movement have contributed to
a faster rate of pavement deterioration, concen-tration
of accidents and more hours of traffic
congestion. Compounding the problem is the
lack of maintenance funding and the rise of
construction costs, which have led to project
delays, deferred maintenance, accelerated deteri-oration,
and ultimately higher project costs.
State law requires Caltrans to prepare a 10- year
plan for the State Highway Operation and
Protection Program ( SHOPP). The SHOPP
identifies the various needs for all state- owned
highways and bridges. As illustrated in the table
above, Bay Area highway maintenance needs
over the 25- year life of this Transportation 2035
Plan total about $ 17 billion. Projected revenues
over the same period are expected to cover only
$ 4 billion, resulting in $ 13 billion in unfunded
needs. The Commission has not yet identified
any new funding sources for the $ 13 billion in
unfunded SHOPP needs. The magnitude of the
Bay Area’s highway rehabilitation needs and
lack of funding suggests that maintenance will
have to be delayed or deferred on some high-ways,
unless a new source of state funding can
be identified.
Maintaining the System — Transportation 2035 Funding Levels
In billions of year- of- expenditure dollars
Committed Discretionary
Total Need Funds Funds Shortfall
Local Streets and Roads $ 34.5 $ 16.3 $ 7.0 $ 11.2
Transit Capital $ 40.3 $ 16.7 $ 6.4 $ 17.2
Transit Operations $ 98.0 $ 90.0 $ - $ 8.0
State Highways $ 17.0 $ 4.0 $ - $ 13.0
M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
Change in Motion
To combat global warming and help clean
Bay Area air, the Transportation 2035 Plan:
• Commits $ 400 million to fund a multi-agency
Transportation Climate Action
Campaign to reduce our carbon footprint,
complementing MTC’s Transportation for
Livable Communities Program, Regional
Bicycle Program, Regional Rideshare
Program, and other Transportation 2035
bicycle and pedestrian investments.
• Directs $ 45 million to the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District’s Goods
Movement Emission Reduction Program to
curb diesel particulate matter emissions
that pose serious health threats to Bay
Area residents — particularly children and
adults with respiratory ailments, and those
residing near the Port of Oakland and along
major goods movement corridors.
Lead the Charge on
Climate Protection
All but a few skeptics now acknowledge that
climate change is real, that it is largely caused
by human activity ( particularly the burning
of fossil fuels), and that it can have profound
consequences for our planet. There is growing
consensus, too, that climate change will have
a dramatic local impact on California and the
Bay Area.
The Bay Area emits greenhouse gases ( GHGs),
principally carbon dioxide, at three times
the world average; and 40 percent of these
emissions come from the transportation sector,
mostly from cars, trucks, buses, trains and
ferries ( see graph to the right). GHGs linger for
years, trapping heat in the earth’s atmosphere
and causing the global climate to change.
Because the consequences of climate change are
serious, the Bay Area needs to take aggressive
action to reduce its transportation- related
emissions, setting the example for the rest of
California and for the national and international
community. We will have to consider these con-sequences
throughout our transportation and
land- use planning; and we will need to ensure
climate resilience in our infrastructure and
development choices ( see map on page 49).
Regional Response
to Climate Change
Time is of the essence for the Bay Area’s
response to climate change. The urgency of the
situation requires immediate action. Some
actions by their very nature will take longer to
implement, due in part to the high amount of
financial investment, political capital and time
required. As a first step, the four regional
CO2- Equivalent Emissions in the
Bay Area, by Major Categories
3 1
2
4 5 6
Pollution Source CO2- Equivalent Percent
1 Transportation 42 40%
2 Industrial/ Commercial 35 34%
3 Electricity/ Co- Generation 15 15%
4 Residential Fuel Usage 7 7%
5 Off- Road Equipment 3 3%
6 Agriculture 1 1%
Total 103 100%
Source: BAAQMD, 2007 Source Inventory of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emissions in million metric tons/ year; data is for 2007
46
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N 2 0 3 5 P L A N 47
agencies — MTC, the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District ( BAAQMD), the Bay
Conservation and Development Commission
and the Association of Bay Area Governments
— are sponsoring a Transportation Climate
Action Campaign.
The Commission has earmarked $ 400 million
toward the Transportation Climate Action
Campaign, which aims to enable individuals
to develop climate- friendly behaviors, reduce
the Bay Area’s carbon footprint, and lay the
groundwork for ongoing future climate change
initiatives. The Transportation Climate Action
Campaign focuses on public outreach and
education efforts to alter driving and travel
behaviors and to offer a suite of complemen-tary
grants, incentives and action- oriented
programs. In addition to the public outreach,
education and advocacy efforts, specific
programs to be pursued include, but are not
limited to, the following:
Climate Grants Program
The Climate Grants Program will fund major
demonstration projects to test the most innova-tive
strategies to promote changes in driving
and travel behaviors. Given that this is the first
time that the region has focused its energies
on a climate protection initiative, this program
provides a great opportunity to learn what
kinds of strategies can most effectively reduce
GHG emissions. Potential projects may seek to
increase the use of low- GHG alternative fuels,
expand car- sharing programs, or implement
low- GHG tire incentive programs or pricing
demonstration projects.
Safe Routes to Schools
The Safe Routes to Schools Program aims to
increase the number of children who walk or
bicycle to school by funding projects that
remove barriers to such activities. Barriers often
include lack of infrastructure, unsafe facilities
that result in uninviting walking and bicycling
conditions, and lack of education and enforce-ment
programs aimed at children, parents and
the community at large. Through the Safe
Routes to School program, local champions
work with parents, schools, and transportation,
health and law enforcement providers to imple-ment
community solutions. This program
would provide additional funding to expand
existing Safe Routes to Schools programs that
are being implemented successfully in Marin,
Alameda and Contra Costa counties, and offer
new funding to implement similar programs in
other counties.
M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N 48 S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
Whereas the federal government has yet to
act on reducing GHG emissions, California
legislators have responded to climate change
with some of the strongest environmental laws
ever passed. Three prominent laws that will
shape our efforts to regulate GHGs include:
Assembly Bill 1493 ( Pavley)
Assembly Bill 1493, enacted in 2002, requires the
California Air Resources Board ( ARB) to develop
and adopt regulations that achieve maximum fea-sible
and cost- effective reduction of GHG emissions
from passenger cars and light- and medium- duty
trucks sold in California for 2009 and subsequent
model years. Under ARB regulations adopted
in 2004, automakers must meet increasingly
stringent GHG emission standards that phase
in between 2009 and 2016. And, California has
committed to implement revised, more- stringent
GHG emission limits by 2020 ( the Pavley Phase 2
rules). While EPA had earlier refused to grant a
waiver that would allow California to implement
its tighter standards, President Obama recently
ordered the EPA to reconsider its denial of
California’s request for a waiver.
Assembly Bill 32: California
Global Warming Solutions Act
The California Global Warming Solutions Act
( Assembly Bill 32), a groundbreaking law signed
by Governor Schwarzenegger in September
2006 ( see photo above), requires reduction of
statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the
year 2020. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions
to 1990 levels means cutting approximately
30 percent from business- as- usual emission
levels projected for 2020, or about 15 percent
from today’s levels. In December 2008, the
ARB approved the scoping plan that outlines
strategies the state will use to reduce GHGs.
Senate Bill 375 ( Steinberg)
Senate Bill 375, signed into law in September
2008, establishes a process for ARB to imple-ment
AB 32 by requiring ARB to adopt by
September 30, 2010, regional GHG targets for
emissions associated with the automobile and
light truck sector. Metropolitan planning organi-zations
such as MTC are required to develop a
Sustainable Communities Strategy ( SCS) element
in their long- range plans to strive to reach the
GHG reduction targets. The SCS adds three new
elements to the plan: 1) a land- use component;
2) a resource and farmland protection compo-nent;
and 3) a demonstration of how the develop-ment
pattern and the transportation network
can work together to reduce GHG emissions. In
the Bay Area, the provisions of Senate Bill 375
will apply to the successor plan to Transportation
2035, scheduled for adoption in 2013.
California Out in Front
1 116
128
128
128
116
1 4
4
84
84
84
92
238
92
35
17
152
1
82
237
87
130
35
9
85
4
13
116
113
12
12
12
12
37
24
37
121
121
29
29
29
80
80
680
580
280
280
680
205
580 580
780
80
505
101
101
101
101
101
238
980 880 580
880
380
San
Mateo
Marin
Sonoma
Napa
Solano
Contra
Costa
Alameda
Santa Clara
San
Francisco
Palo
Alto
Los
Gatos
Fremont
San
Rafael
Novato Rio
Vista
Liv